![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cherydactylhttp://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/07/15/hhs-moves-define-contraception-abortion
Apparently, the Health and Human Services agency has a draft proposal to redefine major forms of contraception, including the pill, patch, and IUD, as abortion, based on the not-proven notion that these forms of contraception are really abortifacient in their action (that they work only or primarily by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg). The above article provides a link to a copy of the leaked draft proposal. The proposal would do this action mainly by defining pregnancy as starting when there is a fertilized egg present, as opposed to the AMA's usual definition of established (ie implanted and progressing) pregnancy. The most insidious thing about this is that under that definition, no woman of reproductive age could ever prove she was not pregnant. (Would this change eventually result in women of fertile age not receiving or being made to delay services like diagnostic x-rays or needed C-class drugs because they "might" be pregnant??) It appears that the idea is to allow service providers to deny contraception, and perhaps allow insurers to not pay for contraception, on the basis that it is abortion. I am beyond appalled. It makes me realize that Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale isn't as far-fetched as I might like it to be.
Apparently, the Health and Human Services agency has a draft proposal to redefine major forms of contraception, including the pill, patch, and IUD, as abortion, based on the not-proven notion that these forms of contraception are really abortifacient in their action (that they work only or primarily by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg). The above article provides a link to a copy of the leaked draft proposal. The proposal would do this action mainly by defining pregnancy as starting when there is a fertilized egg present, as opposed to the AMA's usual definition of established (ie implanted and progressing) pregnancy. The most insidious thing about this is that under that definition, no woman of reproductive age could ever prove she was not pregnant. (Would this change eventually result in women of fertile age not receiving or being made to delay services like diagnostic x-rays or needed C-class drugs because they "might" be pregnant??) It appears that the idea is to allow service providers to deny contraception, and perhaps allow insurers to not pay for contraception, on the basis that it is abortion. I am beyond appalled. It makes me realize that Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale isn't as far-fetched as I might like it to be.
